https://i.ibb.co/RNBGcTJ/securitytrails-drewdevault.png
https://i.ibb.co/NYtTQnh/securitytrails-stallmanreport.png
So even though the report is anonymous, we can be almost certain that Drew is behind it, as he was for the previous hit piece.
https://i.ibb.co/RNBGcTJ/securitytrails-drewdevault.png
https://i.ibb.co/NYtTQnh/securitytrails-stallmanreport.png
So even though the report is anonymous, we can be almost certain that Drew is behind it, as he was for the previous hit piece.
This connection to Drew, combined with this comment from him here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41838124
and this link also posted here (the commented is downvoted to [dead]):
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/drew-chadwick-devault-ddevault...
puts some much needed light on the source of all this heat.
A search for all subdomains of drewdevault.com reveals rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com, which had certificates issued on 29th September 2024, a few days before stallman-report.org was registered:
https://crt.sh/?q=rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com
Helpfully, the Internet Archive monitors the Certificate Transparency logs and crawls all hostnames it finds. Which was done very soon after the certificate for rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com was logged:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault....
From this, we can see that it is an earlier copy of the document that currently exists on stallman-report.org:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240929110752/https://rms-draft...
We can now ascertain that this was a lie and an attempt to mislead, because it's clear from the accumulation of evidence that he authored it. While writing and editing this document he would have read every word, not just "most of" it.
He is also keen to congratulate himself by not-so-humbly announcing that "the depth of this report is astonishing".
Knowing that the author has engaged in such deceptive sockpuppetry casts significant doubt on the document itself. How much of it has been written to mislead the reader and misrepresent the facts?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41838124
> I've read most of the report and it's got a lot more than "last time". Speaking as someone who has done a lot of my own research on Stallman's bullshit, the depth of this report is astonishing. The allegations it makes regarding the conduct of the rest of the FSF is particularly alarming.
> I think you should at least skim it before you comment.
"Wow guys this is such a well-written piece. I wonder who could've put this together..."
I used to enjoy reading Drew's writings, but he's become such a complete goober lately (or I've just noticed it more).
I don't know what RMS's opinions have to do with running a free software organization, nor why they necessitate his cancelling, but apparently some people are incapable of compartmentalizing. I hate how common this has become.
Does it though? If we're expected to separate the message from the messenger for Stallman but not for Drew, isn't that a double standard?
Who cares where the information came from if the information is accurate?
You hit the nail on the head
> I hate how common this has become
That's to be expected when we widen the number of people participating in the technical community. Compartmentalization is an outlier behavior.
There was a time when some folks wouldn't have batted an eye that Reiser killed his wife if his filesystem was good. The median tech community member uses a different standard these days.
>Who cares where the information came from if the information is accurate?
It isn't. The article opens up by claiming that Stallman has a political agenda regarding the normalization of child sexual abuse which is a blatant lie. He never had an agenda regarding this, just a blog where he posted his terrible and tone-deaf opinions.
He deliberately framed his quotes in such a way to lead readers into a conclusion that fits his own political agenda.
A post from that thread, linked below, is currently highlighted on that site's front page with the title "An open letter libeling Richard Stallman as a pedophile was probably written by Drew DeVault, a progressive open-source developer who has 10 years of history posting lolicon on reddit":
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/drew-chadwick-devault-ddevault...
It describes various of Drew's online habits over the years, including sharing artwork of prepubescent children in swimsuits. Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable non-pedophilic reason for this, and I do hope Drew will return to the comments here once more to explain.
Either way, with this in mind, it places this section of Drew's report in a rather different context:
https://stallman-report.org/#support-for-the-possession-of-c...
[0] = https://web.archive.org/web/20131007121950/http://www.reddit... (specifically “Kaname [Madoka] in her swimsuit”. I assume the rules regarding linking to what is legally considered drawn CSAM is rather harsh, so for those who need proof of said claims Pixiv utilizes an ID string on every URL, and the “Sauce” hyperlink will direct you to it.
[1] “I'm of the opinion that 14 year old girls should be required to have an IUD installed. Ten years of contraception that requires a visit to the doctor to remove prematurely.” - https://web.archive.org/web/20130523180641/http://www.reddit...